The Combined 'We're Trading Greinke' Thread (part 2)

[Oldcity]

The last 3 seasons, Cain's been the better, more consistent pitcher. Greinke shouldn't expect a payday equal to or better than Cain.

Just wait a few months, and you can watch him get it.

[adambr2]

(I know I'm overreacting, but I am sick of trading away talent).

 

In Melvin's tenure, the only MLB talent I can think of the Brewers trading away are Sexson and Carlos Lee. Personally, I'm getting sick of us trading away prospects, signing expensive free agents because we don't have pre-arby guys to fill the roles, and watching guys leave as free agents because we refuse to ever trade anyone with any talent.

 

I don't even really count Carlos Lee, because the deal was for other MLB talent, which at the time was pretty confounding.

 

I agree, we haven't been trading MLB talent, we've been trading prospects, many of which would eventually be upper tier MLB talent.

[gregmag]

That offer is more than fair based on his production. $20 million per year? That's very generous and I'm guessing is well above what level the Brewers were thinking prior to Cain's deal. I don't see teams lining up to give him more than that. The big spenders all have reservations about him pitching in a big market.

Source, please.

[gregmag]

Or unless you trust watching him/scouting -- flawless delivery, excellent athletic ability, top-notch arm. I really think we're talking somewhere around $125M being the bare minimum to sign him on the FA market. Especially if Hamels is retained by Philly.

What good is a top-notch arm and strikeouts if you can't get the ERA down? I'm not anti-sabermetrics in the least, but if I'm making a decision worth hundreds of millions of dollars, I'm paying a guy based on results.

I get your basic point, but I think the only thing that really matters in paying a player is your best sense of what he'll do in the future. You don't really want to pay for past results, do you? The reason this whole ERA vs. advanced metrics debate is so hard with Greinke is that the split between his peripherals and his ERA makes projecting his future performance unusually difficult.

[jerichoholicninja]

That offer is more than fair based on his production. $20 million per year? That's very generous and I'm guessing is well above what level the Brewers were thinking prior to Cain's deal. I don't see teams lining up to give him more than that. The big spenders all have reservations about him pitching in a big market.

Source, please.

 

I don't think any team seriously believes that but all you have to do is go to MLB Trade Rumors and any time Greinke's name is mentioned to the Yankees or Red Sox it is always followed by a comment about there is concern if he can handle playing in a large market.

 

For example:

 

"Zack Greinke doesn’t interest the Yankees, who are concerned about how players will adjust to playing in New York."

[SRB]

Or unless you trust watching him/scouting -- flawless delivery, excellent athletic ability, top-notch arm. I really think we're talking somewhere around $125M being the bare minimum to sign him on the FA market. Especially if Hamels is retained by Philly.

What good is a top-notch arm and strikeouts if you can't get the ERA down? I'm not anti-sabermetrics in the least, but if I'm making a decision worth hundreds of millions of dollars, I'm paying a guy based on results.

I get your basic point, but I think the only thing that really matters in paying a player is your best sense of what he'll do in the future. You don't really want to pay for past results, do you? The reason this whole ERA vs. advanced metrics debate is so hard with Greinke is that the split between his peripherals and his ERA makes projecting his future performance unusually difficult.

 

I agree, though I think there's a point when you reach a large enough sample in which the player is getting hit/giving up more runs than the peripherals say he "should" that you have to question their predictive effectiveness going forward for that individual player.

 

But I guess my broader point is not that Greinke won't be elite going forward, but that I'm surprised there's so much consensus that GMs will value him as if he's definitely going to be elite going forward. The reason players like Ryan Howard got such huge contracts is that GMs still pay for superficial stats like RBI (and ERA/W), so now they are completely ignoring Greinke's inability (minus 2009) to put up an ERA below the mid-3's? Because I think that's the only way he's worth $120+ million.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think a mid-3's ERA, with most of his career coming in the AL (for comparison, Cain's career road ERA is 3.59), does qualify you as an elite pitcher -- or at least "elite", in terms of what comes along on the FA market.

 

The way I look at who's an elite pitcher -- and of course this is only my take -- is based much more on physical tools. That's because imo the elite pitchers' ERAs really tend to bounce around that mid-3's area. Some years you see a guy closer to a 4 ERA, some years he's closer to a 3... but typically speaking, mid-3's seems to be where the elite or very good guys hang out from year to year [EDIT: what I mean here is that I think of mid-3's as like the baseline for an elite pitcher's ERA will likely be, in any given year -- not that I think a 3.50 ERA season is elite]. I tend to think of the extremely good seasons (like Verlander's '11 or '12 so far... and prior to '11, Verlander wasn't "able" to post anything but mid-3's ERA seasons) or "bad"/not-elite seasons as performance spikes, and that the pitcher will bounce back to that mid-3's range as opposed to continue the rest of his career in the low 3's or 2's somewhere/upper 3's or 4's somewhere.

 

Again, this is not meant to be scientific, just my kind of baseline approach to qualifying who's an elite pitcher. Imho there's just too much volatility from season to season for most top pitchers to say a guy has to be low-3's or sub-3's in ERA from year to year for me to consider him an "ace" or "elite".

[PilprinBuddha]

(I know I'm overreacting, but I am sick of trading away talent).

 

In Melvin's tenure, the only MLB talent I can think of the Brewers trading away are Sexson and Carlos Lee. Personally, I'm getting sick of us trading away prospects, signing expensive free agents because we don't have pre-arby guys to fill the roles, and watching guys leave as free agents because we refuse to ever trade anyone with any talent.

 

If we don't sign Grienke, I am right there with you. We have raped our farm system for CC, Grienke, and Marcum. It did get us to the playoffs twice, but it destroyed our minor league system. Tell me Escobar and Lawrie on the left side of the infield wouldn't look good right now.

 

If we can't afford to resign guys we trade for, we can't afford to play that game. If we need to be a draft and develop team, so be it. I won't like it, but could at least understand it.

[logan82]

We have raped our farm system for CC, Grienke, and Marcum.

Who did we really trade away for CC? We Traded Matt LaPorta, Jackson, Bryson and Brantley. LaPorta being the only one who may have made an impact for us but we had Fielder at his position. I know the other side of the argument is we should have traded Fielder and promoted LaPorta. I disagree with that being the right move though.

 

I agree that the Greinke and Marcum trades thinned our farm system. I am still 50/50 on those trades. I don't hate that we got into the playoffs last year but I think we could have been setup pretty nice for next year and several years after without those trades.

[TooLiveBrew]

I know the other side of the argument is we should have traded Fielder and promoted LaPorta.

 

No, the other side of the argument would be to have traded away a package like they did for CC in order to get a cost-controlled (younger) player.

[jjfanec]

We have raped our farm system for CC, Grienke, and Marcum.

Who did we really trade away for CC? We Traded Matt LaPorta, Jackson, Bryson and Brantley. LaPorta being the only one who may have made an impact for us but we had Fielder at his position. I know the other side of the argument is we should have traded Fielder and promoted LaPorta. I disagree with that being the right move though.

 

I agree that the Greinke and Marcum trades thinned our farm system. I am still 50/50 on those trades. I don't hate that we got into the playoffs last year but I think we could have been setup pretty nice for next year and several years after without those trades.

 

Yeah we could be better going forward if we hadnt made those two trades. Escobar would be a nice SS going forward even when his average eventually drops due to an unsustainable Babip. Lawrie could be the starting 3B saving some cash we used on Aram. Odorizzi would have a chance to be in the rotation next year.

 

Next years team would swap Aram with Lawrie and a FA SS with Escobar. Ramirez has an OPS .70 higher than Lawrie (who has also hurt himself on the bases), but Lawrie is better in the field. So the offense would be quite similar although Lawrie is likely to get a little better and ARam is likely to drop off some. Defense would definitely be better

 

Odorizzi would give us another young arm to battle for a spot in the rotation.

 

That team would still need a lot of help in the rotation and the bullpen but I guess the Ramirez (and Greinke/Marcum/Wolf) money could go there. We were two games away from the Series last year so it is hard for me to dislike those trades too much.

[trwi7]

I know the other side of the argument is we should have traded Fielder and promoted LaPorta.

 

No, the other side of the argument would be to have traded away a package like they did for CC in order to get a cost-controlled (younger) player.

 

Exactly. Those guys (especially LaPorta) had value at the time. Knowing what we know now they don't but at that time they did. They could have used those pieces to get a longer term solution than a half season rental.

[logan82]

I know the other side of the argument is we should have traded Fielder and promoted LaPorta.

 

No, the other side of the argument would be to have traded away a package like they did for CC in order to get a cost-controlled (younger) player.

Either way, I agree with the trade for CC.

 

That team would still need a lot of help in the rotation and the bullpen but I guess the Ramirez (and Greinke/Marcum/Wolf) money could go there. We were two games away from the Series last year so it is hard for me to dislike those trades too much.

I know but I could easily be swung either way on them. If we extend Greinke I will like the trade a lot more.

[RockCoCougars]

I have no clue how you can second guess the C.C. trade, and the most prevalent name thrown around in Prince Fielder rumors was Daniel Hudson. Yuck.

 

I'll take the two playoff runs, thank you very much.

[logan82]

I have no clue how you can second guess the C.C. trade, and the most prevalent name thrown around in Prince Fielder rumors was Daniel Hudson. Yuck.

 

I'll take the two playoff runs, thank you very much.

Well I think the argument was that we should have taken the guys we traded for CC and gone after a pitcher that would have been around for more than half a year. If we did that I don't think we make the playoffs though. We barely made it as it was.

[RockCoCougars]

I have no clue how you can second guess the C.C. trade, and the most prevalent name thrown around in Prince Fielder rumors was Daniel Hudson. Yuck.

 

I'll take the two playoff runs, thank you very much.

Well I think the argument was that we should have taken the guys we traded for CC and gone after a pitcher that would have been around for more than half a year. If we did that I don't think we make the playoffs though. We barely made it as it was.

 

Likely no way they make the playoffs with probably any other pitcher in the game down the stretch in 2008. They were also lucky that the Indians accepted a deal centered around LaPorta with essentially no pitching included. How many teams would have dealt an impact player for that package? Brantley is having a pretty good season this year, but I still make that move 100 times out of 100.

[paul253]

They were also lucky that the Indians accepted a deal centered around LaPorta with essentially no pitching included

And they were really lucky the Indians picked Brantley instead of Lucroy.

[nate82]

They were also lucky that the Indians accepted a deal centered around LaPorta with essentially no pitching included

And they were really lucky the Indians picked Brantley instead of Lucroy.

 

I don't believe Lucroy was in the discussion it was Brantley versus Green. For the Indians it was lucky that they selected Brantley over Green as Green looks to be at best a platoon or utility player in the majors though Brantley doesn't look to be anything more than your typical 4th or 5th OF as he is not all that great defensively in CF which limits his value as an OF as he just doesn't have the power to be an everyday corner OF. I would definitely take Brantley over Green though.

[Raw Biz]

They were also lucky that the Indians accepted a deal centered around LaPorta with essentially no pitching included

And they were really lucky the Indians picked Brantley instead of Lucroy.

 

I'm not sure Lucroy was on that list. I thought it was between Brantley and Green.

[paul253]

I'm not sure Lucroy was on that list. I thought it was between Brantley and Green.

 

I thought it was Brantley, Green, Lucroy and Cain.

[adambr2]

Me too, I'm pretty certain Lucroy was on that list.

[Raw Biz]

Well even if he was on the list (and I'm not sure if he was), I don't think there was ever a chance that they would've taken him. It was between Brantley and Green from everything I heard.

[trwi7]

http://www.brewcrewball.com/2008/7/20/575166/sabathia-ptbnl-to-be-chose

 

Second comment says internet rumors were Cain and Lucroy were on the list as well.

[chickinbrickin]

After hearing rumblings about the Brewers tossing Greinke an initial offer of 5 years 100 million I wanted to discuss. Personally, I cannot decide on what side of the fence I am on with Greinke. Trade or Sign?

 

It would be nice to lock him up for 5 years but that contract would handcuff the team quite a bit, and the thought of it scares me more than it excites me.

 

I like the idea of trading him, but it isn't like we are going to get a top tier prospect for him. Without Greinke they are banking heavily on the fact that Peralta, Thornburg, Jungmann, or Bradley become a sold #2. That thought also scares me a bit as well.

 

What side are you all on?

[KCBrewerfan34]

The Phillies are still trying to sign Hamels to a long-term deal, but Heyman talked to an official who gave that scenario a 30 percent chance of playing out. Heyman said the Brewers have a better chance of signing Greinke to a long-term deal.